Building a better understanding of labour exploitation's impact on migrant health: An operational framework

Sabah Boufkhed; Nicki Thorogood; Cono Ariti; Mary Alison Durand

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271890

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 11, 2021
18 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - M. Harvey Brenner, Editor PONE-D-21-11987 Building a better understanding of labour exploitation’s impact on migrant health: An operational framework PLOS ONE Dear Sabah Boufkhed, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please address the following concerns which reviewers raised in your revised manuscript: Reviewer # 1 asks whether the framework applies to international labor migrants only - non inclusive of internal migrant workers in exploitative conditions. Is this correct? Further, does the proposed framework of Labour exploitation consider the phases of migrant cycle? The model needs to better consider/integrate/enshrine exploitation not just at the point of destination but also at point of origin prior to departure. Exploitation occurs at country of origin across migration (mis)information, recruitment phases, mandatory health examinations as pre-requisite for labour migration, etc. The exploitation also occurs post-arrival phases for some migrant workers and manifests in forms such as non provision of social welfare support, health and legal protections upon return. As authors indicate non-random sampling method used may limit the generalizability of the findings as participating experts may have similar political leanings towards the topic and were mainly from high-income countries - with half of the sample being from the UK. Regions such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which is one of the main destination regions globally for international migrant workers, and where proportion of migrant to local workers is amongst the highest in the world. Unclear as to the representation from this region. The second reviewer raises the following (minor) issues. Please address these and revise your manuscript accordingly: Lines 218-220 state that a second concept map was produced by migrant workers. It was not clear to me if this was included in the results or if it will be analyzed/published separately, but I would like to see more discussion of this in the paper and would be interested to know how it complemented/differed from the other concept map. The framework proposed by Cwikel (line 170) needs a reference Line 230: there is a possible grammatical error, as the line does not make sense to reviewer #2. Please submit your revised manuscript by April 28, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, M. Harvey Brenner, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention. 5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 6. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author. - https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4656024/1/2019_PHP_PhD_Boufkhed_S-Copy.pdf We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work. We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. Please pay special attention to the sections of the results that have overlap. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I thought this was a fantastic study and the author was able to present and discuss the results and the complex underlying theories in a pragmatic and clear way. I believe this study to satisfy all the requirements needed to be published in PLOS ONE. The study will be very useful for researchers within the field of labour migration and beyond. A few minor points to consider are listed below: 1) Lines 218-220 state that a second concept map was produced by migrant workers. It was not clear to me if this was included in the results or if it will be analysed/published separately, but I would like to see more discussion of this in the paper and would be interested to know how it complemented/differed from the other concept map. 2) The framework proposed by Cwikel (line 170) needs a reference 3) Line 230: possible grammatical error, the line does not make sense to me Overall, looking forward to seeing this published! Reviewer #2: Issues of migrant health and labour exploitation have gained momentum in global political agendas and in the domain of global health AND in the field of migration governance. This is a timely contribution to the area on labour exploitation focusing on migrant workers in manual low-skilled job. Just to confirm, the framework applies to international labour migrants only - non inclusive of internal migrant workers in exploitative conditions - correct? How does the proposed framework of Labour exploitation consider the phases of migrant cycle? The model needs to better consider/integrate/enshrine exploitation not just at the point of destination but also at point of origin prior to departure. Exploitation occurs at country of origin across migration (mis)information, recruitment phases, mandatory health examinations as pre-requisite for labour migration, etc. The exploitation also occurs post-arrival phases for some migrant workers and manifests in forms such as non provision of social welfare support, health and legal protections upon return. As authors indicate non-random sampling method used may limit the generalizability of the findings as participating experts may have similar political leanings towards the topic and were mainly from high-income countries - with half of the sample being from the UK. Regions such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which is one of the main destination regions globally for international migrant workers, and where proportion of migrant to local workers is amongst the highest in the world. Unclear as to the representation from this region. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Isabelle Pearson Reviewer #2: Yes:** Dr Kolitha Wickramage [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271890.r001
Revision 1
26 Apr 2022 Author Response Reviewers’ comments followed by the Authors’ reply (starting with ->) Reviewer #1 -> Thank you very much for your feedback and request for clarification. This has helped strengthen our manuscript. Reviewer # 1 asks whether the framework applies to international labor migrants only - non inclusive of internal migrant workers in exploitative conditions. Is this correct? -> Thank you for your feedback. The framework was indeed designed for international labour migrants as a first step. Further research would be needed to assess whether the framework could be used in internal migration context. We clarified this in the core text after the definition we use for ‘migrant workers’, as follows “This paper will focus on international migrant workers.” (line 56) Further, does the proposed framework of Labour exploitation consider the phases of migrant cycle? The model needs to better consider/integrate/enshrine exploitation not just at the point of destination but also at point of origin prior to departure. Exploitation occurs at country of origin across migration (mis)information, recruitment phases, mandatory health examinations as pre-requisite for labour migration, etc. The exploitation also occurs post-arrival phases for some migrant workers and manifests in forms such as non provision of social welfare support, health and legal protections upon return. -> Thank you for your comment. The framework has indeed considered the phases of migrant cycle, and we have now clarified this in the discussion as follows: “The current research was designed within a pragmatic epistemology that aimed to facilitate the understanding of labour exploitation in the labour market of the ‘destination’ or ‘host’ country, with the objective to measure and identify labour exploitation where the international migrants work. We acknowledge that international migrant workers’ exploitation may occur differently at different stages of the migration cycle [92], and our framework may not account for situation in the pre- or post-destination migration phases.” (lines 433-38) As authors indicate non-random sampling method used may limit the generalizability of the findings as participating experts may have similar political leanings towards the topic and were mainly from high-income countries - with half of the sample being from the UK. Regions such as the GCC which is one of the main destination regions globally for international migrant workers, and where proportion of migrant to local workers is amongst the highest in the world. Unclear as to the representation from this region. -> Thank you for this comment. During the identification of experts, we mapped out experts from and of every region of the world. Unfortunately, we did not have responses from all regions as mentioned in the discussion. While we were not able to recruit experts from every region of the world, we did however recruit experts with broad and international expertise on labour exploitation. We believe that the statements generated would be widely applicable. The framework’s novelty is that it offers a tool to capture labour exploitation at the destination country in a holistic and multidimensional way, with items connected to structural aspects of exploitation (e.g. the social and legal dimension) and the aspects connected to management of workers (e.g. exposure to violence). For example, the Kafala system that is still implemented in several countries in the Middle East and GCC would result in situations captured in several dimensions of labour exploitation described in the framework, such as - the lack of Social and Legal Protection (e.g. “s/he can be dismissed at will”; s/he does not benefit from social protection benefits; “s/he is treated worse than the legally acceptable minimum in the country where s/he works”) - Health and Safety issues (e.g. “s/he works in unsafe conditions”) - Issues related to Finance and Migration (e.g. “his/her working permit is linked to the current employer”; s/he is lied to about his/her rights as a migrant in the country where s/he is working; s/he is paid below the wage of national workers for the same job) - Issues related to Shelter and Personal security (e.g. s/he is threatened with deportation”; “s/he is obliged to work under cruel or inhumane conditions”) The framework’s novelty is that it offers a tool to capture labour exploitation at the destination country in a holistic and multidimensional way, with items connected to structural aspects of exploitation (e.g. the social and legal dimension) and the aspects connected to management of workers (e.g. exposure to violence). The framework provides a much-needed basis for future research that could test whether it is applicable to GCC countries. We added the following specification in the discussion: “While we identified experts from various regions, we were not able to recruit experts from every region of the world. We did however recruit experts with a broad and international expertise on labour exploitation. We believe that the statements generated would be widely applicable. The framework’s novelty is that it offers a tool to capture labour exploitation at the destination country in a holistic and multidimensional way, with items connected to structural aspects of exploitation (e.g. the social and legal dimension) and the aspects connected to management of workers (e.g. exposure to violence).” (lines 451-57) - Reviewer #2 The second reviewer raises the following (minor) issues. Please address these and revise your manuscript accordingly: -> Thank you very much for the positive feedback and supportive comments. Lines 218-220 state that a second concept map was produced by migrant workers. It was not clear to me if this was included in the results or if it will be analyzed/published separately, but I would like to see more discussion of this in the paper and would be interested to know how it complemented/differed from the other concept map. -> Thank you very much for highlighting this point. We indeed performed a Concept Mapping (GCM) with migrant workers. The GCM method was adapted for the population that is considered vulnerable and hard-to-reach, and was conducted in person. Given the word limitations and the difference in method, we could not include it as part of one paper. It will constitute a stand-alone paper that would bring the voices of migrant workers. In order to avoid confusion for the reader, we adapted the lines mentioned by reviewer #2 as follows: “Migrant workers are also considered experts on the topic [74], and we have undertaken further research with international migrants working in low skilled jobs in London to assess their conceptualisation [19].” (lines 209-11) The framework proposed by Cwikel (line 170) needs a reference -> Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have now amended the references. Line 230: there is a possible grammatical error, as the line does not make sense to reviewer #2. -> Thank you very much for pointing this out, there are indeed few words missing. We amended as follows: “It is expected that the statements generated for the sorting-rating exercise are varied enough to cover all aspects of the concept to be mapped, and it is common to include new participants who did not participate in the first phase (3,4).” (lines 221-22) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reply to reviewers_25042022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271890.r002
11 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - M. Harvey Brenner, Editor Building a better understanding of labour exploitation’s impact on migrant health: An operational framework PONE-D-21-11987R1 Dear Dr. Boufkhed, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, M. Harvey Brenner, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All review feedback incorporated in revised version. I am happy for this to proceed for publication, thank you. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Isabelle Pearson Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Kolitha Wickramage ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271890.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Jul 2022 Acceptance Letter - M. Harvey Brenner, Editor PONE-D-21-11987R1 Building a better understanding of labour exploitation's impact on migrant health: An operational framework Dear Dr. Boufkhed: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor M. Harvey Brenner Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271890.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .